Houser v. Superior Court CA4/3

Filed 11/19/25 Houser v. Superior Court CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JULIE ADAIR HOUSER,

Petitioner, G065315

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13P001609) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, OPINION

Respondent;

MARLENE KLARBORG LARSEN,

Real Party in Interest.

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of certiorari to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Stephen T. Hicklin, Judge. Petition Granted. Law Offices of Lisa R. McCall, Lisa R. McCall and Erica M. Barbero for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Marlene Klarborg Larsen, in pro. per., for Real Party in Interest. * * *

Petitioner Julie Adair Houser seeks a writ of certiorari to annul a judgment of contempt finding her guilty of five counts of violating custody orders related to her 17-year-old son, Xander. The judgment arises out of a long-standing and high-conflict parentage case with real party in interest Marlene Klarborg Larsen. The trial court found Houser in contempt for unilaterally authorizing Xander’s participation in school sports and for failing to consult on a decision to get Xander braces, fining her $10,000. Because contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding, we must strictly construe the underlying court orders and require substantial evidence of a willful violation of an order. Here, that standard has not been met. The orders allegedly violated were (1) the order that both parents share joint legal custody, and (2) the order that neither parent schedule activities during the other’s parenting time. Neither order was violated. Because the order sharing joint legal custody did not require both parents’ consent for any particular activities, Houser had the legal authority to unilaterally sign her son up for sports activities and to get him braces. And while the sports teams did result in some of Xander’s activities occurring during Larsen’s parenting time, Houser did not schedule those events, the teams did, and thus she did not violate the letter of the order. More broadly, life for a teenager involves sports, activities, and occasional medical needs. While co-parenting requires communication, a parent who facilitates these normal life activities for their child should not be held in contempt unless they have willfully violated the express and specific terms of a court order. The orders here lack the specificity required to support the court’s findings. We therefore grant the petition and annul the judgment of contempt.